Currently, social media falls under the first category legally, while they behave like they're in the second. They need to pick a side and take what comes with it instead of sitting in the middle and picking the parts they like from each side.
-
-
Replying to @KJ_Jeller @schwaka_ and
Exactly. You just ruined your own point here. Since they are publishers, they don't have to give everyone a platform. But since these social media companies profess to be platforms, they legally are required to give everyone a platform.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KJ_Jeller @schwaka_ and
So are you saying phone companies should be able to restrict what people say on their platforms? This is what a platform means, they can not restrict speech on their platforms because they are open platforms. If they were publishers, they could feel free to restrict what ...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KJ_Jeller @JMeuvi76 and
It really isn't. You're either a platform or a publisher. They don't want the legal liability that comes with being a publisher, but don't seem to want to be a platform.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KJ_Jeller @JMeuvi76 and
This article has some links to court cases involving this topic.https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html …
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I linked the piece for the references in it, but it was written by a former FCC lawyer. They're the ones claiming they need Section 230 protection to protect free speech, then arbitrarily removing content, which goes against the concept of free speech.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.